The Economist asks: What if Mitt Romney had won?


Return To Article
  • jtown702 Reno, NV
    Aug. 14, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    You are so correct. Obama had to be brought down by the people, the very people who elected him. No candidate could have done it. With the economy still getting worse and all of the recent scandals and those scandals still to unfold, it is happening this very minute. That is why 2016 will be primed and poised for the re-emergence of Romney. 2016 Will forever be known as Redemption 2016. Find and join us on facebook if you agree.

  • Gregorio Norco, CA
    Aug. 8, 2013 12:18 a.m.

    A President Romney would have followed the constitution and made a difference in every aspect of our lives as citizens, asking us to stand a little taller, work a little smarter and be self reliant and not government dependent. He would have us live within our means and ask government to get out of the way of capitalism and growth. Jobs would be abundant in the private sector and less populated in the public sector, our renewed leadership in the oil and gas fields and with more workers there would be more savings in our 401 accounts.
    A President Romney would have made America great again for a new generation.

  • sergio Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 7, 2013 9:50 p.m.

    Riverton Cougar,
    Are you enjoying your free stuff, maybe you should give some back.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    July 29, 2013 4:46 p.m.

    Why bring this up? I'll tell you why. It's because we need to learn from the past. Those who fail to learn about the past are doomed to repeat it. FDR's handling of the Great Depression took an awfully long time to bring about true recovery. His leadership was admirable, but his economic policies didn't work. He didn't know better because there was no past Great Depression to learn from.

    Today we have the history of the Great Depression to learn from. Obama didn't learn the lesson, apparently. He wants to spend our way into prosperity. Some people have said the economy is recovering. Yeah right! That's just a bunch of spin from the Democrats. It is recovering, but at a snail's pace. In other words, the "recovery" is so slow that we barely notice anything. Does anyone care to compare employment numbers from now and January 2009? Hint: it's roughly the SAME.

    "Apparently Romney governed so well that the residents of the state felt that 4 more years of Obama were preferable."

    Or they wanted free stuff.

  • Turtles Run Missouri City, TX
    July 29, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    A good frame of reference for a Romney Presidency would be to look at Massachusetts. These people had the opportunity to live under 4 years of Romney as a Governor and Obama as POTUS. Who did they chose?

    Obama wins the state by 23 points. Apparently Romney governed so well that the residents of the state felt that 4 more years of Obama were preferable.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    July 29, 2013 2:21 p.m.

    Typical of the Press... now that the election's over, they can admit that romney was the better candidate, but during the time it really matters, they could say nothing good about him.

  • Dutch Bellingham, wa
    July 28, 2013 9:02 p.m.

    I think this country got the President that it deserves.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    July 27, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    A Tea Party disaster.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 27, 2013 12:06 p.m.

    FT1/SS 10:22 p.m. July 26, 2013

    We would at least have somebody in the White House telling us the truth, and not cluttered with scandals.


    In truth, we have a better chance of that now than we would if we had been stuck with Romney in the White House. Romney wouldn't recognize the truth if it reached up an bit him on the nose, much less tell it (unless, of course, he could use it for his own benefit). We're much better off without Romney.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 27, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    @Tators 10:15 a.m. July 26, 2013

    It's totally obvious that those praising Romney on this post are still entrenched in ignorance of who Romney really is and the damage he would've accomplished. It's utterly sad that so many people judge and criticize from an uninformed basis. People (like me) who once supported him investigated him in depth, saw him for what he really is, and give him the condemnation he so richly deserves. He is amoral, unprincipled wannabe "leader" who has neither the real-world experience nor credentials to do anything which would have really helped this country at any time. In fact, the truth is that he would have done just the opposite.

    The Romneys put on a show pretending to live in a basement apartment while going to college, but that's all it was -- a show. They didn't "budget tightly" and didn't have to -- they could in fact afford anything they wanted at any time just by selling the stock his father gave them.

    Romney understands nothing about anyone who isn't affluent. Thankfully Romney wasn't inflicted on the country. Bad as Obama is, Romney would have been infinitely worse.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    July 27, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    The outcome of the election is predtermined like a WWE wrestling match. The super rich put a puppet in office that represents them and their interest and they insturct that puppet to tell the people that they are representing them when nothing can be further from the truth. They give you the illusion of choice. They hold an election between two puppets that will be totally obedient to them regardless of who wins and who loses. The election has been rigged for many many years. It's the super rich that are the real governors of this country. They just make more money by having a puppet in office and they also avoid the scrutiny that the president usually takes by putting a puppet in office.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    July 27, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    If Romney won not a single thing would be different. Romney was nothing more than the white Obama. Romney didn't become governor in the most liberal state in the country because of his "conservative" politics. He did everything Obama is doing now at the state level.

  • ken12s North Salt Lake, UT
    July 27, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    Honest men don't hide income in off shore accounts and Swiss banks because it is more convenient . I don't think Mitt can even spell "middle class" let alone represent them?

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    July 27, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    We would be spending a lot on "defense" though I think that "defense" is often a misnomer nowadays.

    In terms of jobs; I think there might well be significant improvement, especially in military jobs sadly, but perhaps more widely than that based on immigration controls, if Mr Romney could manage to inspire better enforcement via the business community especially, or based on a real desire to improve levels of employment if that could effect change (he would be only President, he would need support in the Legislature and Supreme Court and that would not necessarily alter for the better.

    I think we might be making some ground in the fight against illegal immigration, but again only with support in the other branches of government.

    I fear that we might be encouraged by example and rhetoric to be "Proud Americans" with an unapologetic, patronizing and contemptuous, attitude to all foreigners, friend or foe. I think we already have that though.

    I think there would still be a wide divide based on socio-economic class, coming from another angle but just as nasty.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    July 26, 2013 11:06 p.m.

    Romney lost because of A. Voter Fraud. B. The liberal press never gave him a chance. C. Obama promised everybody free stuff. Pick one and then move on. Time for new leadership in the Republican party. Lets start by replacing McConnell and not re-electing Lee.

    signed low information voter

  • FT1/SS Virginia Beach, VA
    July 26, 2013 10:22 p.m.

    We would at least have somebody in the White House telling us the truth, and not cluttered with scandals.

  • rawlshea1 salt lake city, UT
    July 26, 2013 3:11 p.m.

    NEWS FLASH - Romney lost the election!! Between the Deseret News, Mike Leavitt and Kirk Jowers, to name a few, we seem to want to focus on past junctures. Get over it. As adults we should take are losses and move on. Certainly on a personal level we can benefit from the mistakes made and learn a lesson or two for the future, but keep punishing the rest of us with "but if" fluff? Again, Deseret News, et al, MOVE ON.

  • leonard Oakley, ID
    July 26, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    To my way of thinking, O'bama is the worst U.S. president ever. Just to give you an idea, he thinks I should be in jail just for saying such a thing. And his blind followers probably think the same way. And that is only the tip of the iceberg!

  • JParkerfan St. George, UT
    July 26, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    WoW!!!!!! The Kool Aid drinkers need to take a lesson on how our Representative Republic works. Congress makes the laws. Obama may have a wish list, but the Republicans in congress shouldn't just "rubber stamp" what he wants. They each have a vote. The Dems in congress haven't passed any Republican ideas or legislation, and Obama surely hasn't signed any into law.
    Obama is an extreme, big government liberal, who has never once shown an ability to compromise on anything. He is a horrible manager, and I would dare say the laziest President we've probably ever had. (Flying around the world/country giving Political speeches isn't Presidential work, it just costs the taxpayers millions of dollars). His economic record is abysmal. This is by far the slowest post recession recovery in history. It would have done better on it's own. Same for FDR. He took a 3 year depression for the rest of the world and turned it into a 10 year depression for us.

  • Republicantthinkstraigh Anywhere but, Utah, Utah
    July 26, 2013 1:13 p.m.

    Considering the obstruction the Republican party has given to President Obama I'd give him an A. Anyone who has to try and work with that clown show gets an A automatically in my book. In all seriousness, Obama gets an incomplete grade because the obstruction has been out of this world so we can't really even grade him out yet. But, despite all the obstructing I would say we have rebounded nicely since the great recession and we aren't in any new wars, that in itself deserves a high grading.

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    July 26, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    to Ernest T. Bass

    "If Mitt won,... Iran would have Starbucks on every corner."

    That is the funniest thing EVER posted on these comments boards.

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    July 26, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    re: Tators

    "It's totally obvious that the Romney criticizers on this post are still entrenched in ignorance of who Romney really is and what his realistic potential could've accomplished. It's utterly sad that so many people judge and criticize from an uninformed basis.

    No. Its pathetically obvious that the Romney fanboys still seem to prefer some idyllic almost naive perception of who Mitt is.

    "The Romneys spent years living in a basement apartment and budgeting tightly while going to college. He understands."

    Then, they hit the big time like George & Louise Jefferson. Now, Mittens & Annie inhabit the same pocket of unreality that most Ivy Leaguers in the 1% do.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    July 26, 2013 12:57 p.m.

    SG in SLC:

    I agree that President Obama isn't the worst President. I even dare say it's still early to give him a grade. But if I had to predict or even grade on what I've seen or lived through, rating the President in the top quartile is a stretch. A huge stretch. I try to rate fairly as a historian myself and BTW I don't give W. very good marks either. I suspect both should be in the lower quartile with two below average Presidents in succession thus leaving us in our current difficulties. I would rate without question James Buchanan as the worst President. He did nothing to stop the Civil War and if your Mormon, you should have an even lower opinion of him.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    July 26, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    $2 gas, says who?
    If Mitt won, gas would be FREE!
    No corporations or people with 6-figure incomes would have to pay taxes.
    Nobody would have health insurance without paying triple premiums.
    Health insurance companies would have ten-fold profits.
    There would be a couple hundred keystone pipelines so Canada could get their oil to the world market.
    Iran would have Starbucks on every corner.
    The poor's tax rates would quadruple.
    The nation's debt would have topped $20 trillion.
    It would be awesome!!

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    July 26, 2013 11:54 a.m.


    You do have a good point. No matter how good of a person Romney actually is (inspite of the negative bias many still harbor against him) and no matter how good his agenda for the country might have been (we'll now never know for sure), he would certainly have been limited by the actions of a Congress that (like you) I don't trust either. Way too much partisan gridlock.

    And no president, regardless of his potential for doing good, can do much of anything without some cooperation from Congress. That's a factor many fail to take into account. I appreciate you pointing that out. It's been hindering Obama and it undoubtedly would've also hindered Romney.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    July 26, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    Personally, I think Romney's austerity program would have strangled the recovery, as we have seen happen in Europe. The sequestration has had a mild effect compared to what would have happened under Romney. Hoover's four-year attempt to balance the federal budget just made the Depression worse. You don't turn off the water when you're trying to fight a fire.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    July 26, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    @There You Go Again
    Saint George, UT

    Which Romney?

    10:02 p.m. July 25, 2013


    Agreed 1,000%

    "Which Romney?"

    HaHa - Thanks for making my whole day!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 26, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    "Many of Romney's most avid critics completely changed their opinions about him once they truly got to know him"

    Back around 2003 Romney was my favorite Republican. I'm a Progressive so naturally that meant he was talking about pro-choice, gun control, had said he was more liberal on gay rights than Ted Kennedy, and was pushing forward a healthcare system quite similar to what ended up being Obamacare. I really liked that version of Romney.

    While I'd like to think that version of Romney would reappear after winning the election (he was my second most-desired Republican of the primary field if a Republican won... Huntsman was first) there's just one little problem. Well two. One, with regards to what the president has most control over, foreign policy, he had way too many Bush guys. Two... Ryan was his Vice President, and I highly doubt Romney would have strayed far from the sorts of things the Republican Congress was passing, and I strongly disagree with what they're doing. So even if I took an optimistic take on Romney, I wouldn't trust the Congress or trust that Romney would stop them.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 26, 2013 11:12 a.m.

    "Gas in Europe are around $4.00 per gallon more than here with oil going less distance. Taxes on gasoline are controlled by government, and does effect price."

    Those taxes, at least at the federal level are around a quarter a gallon. They were last set in 1993 and NOT indexed for inflation so federal gas taxes as a percentage of gas prices and monetary value if it were allowed to increase with inflation have declined during the Bush and Obama administrations.

    "I was not even born during Buchanan's time so I can't say Obama is worse than him. "

    None of us were but calling Obama the worst president in history is kinda silly if we only look at only 4-12 presidents (depending on how old each of us are).

    There's a difference between being of the other political party and being awful. This goes both ways (Reagan is generally ranked around 7-10 on historian-made lists but non-historian liberals tend to think he's something worse than 30th). Besides, DW-NOMINATE scores grade this Republican caucus as it is now the most conservative ever, small wonder all Obama's deal-making falls apart to obstructionists.

  • Larry Chandler CEDAR CITY, UT
    July 26, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    What if? What if silly speculative stories weren't published? What if the British had won the War of Independence? What if the South had won the Civil War? What if the Germans had won WWII? What if I won $500 million in the lottery? What if I even bought a lottery ticket to make that happen?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    July 26, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    What if...

    The Titanic never sunk?
    Hitler was never elected German Chancellor?
    Penacillian had never been discovered?
    the South had won the Civil War?
    Joseph and Hyrum Smith were never shot?
    What if the American's had lost the Revolutionary War?

    Go ahead Republican Tea-Partiers,
    keep living in your Grandeous Utopian imaginary world of make-believe.

    THAT is the very reason you have, and will continue to loose election after election.
    Putting Ideology ahead of Reality is a fool's game.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    July 26, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    @ute alumni
    "it is impossible for obama groupies to understand that he is the worst president in US history"

    This isn’t the first time I have heard this claim, and I shake my head and laugh every time I do, because it demonstrates an incredible lack of historical knowledge and perspective.

    Barack Obama the worst President in U.S. history? Not even close.

    In surveys of historians, political scientists, and presidential scholars from across the political spectrum, and even in many broad polls of popular opinion, either James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, or Andrew Johnson consistently rank as the worst President in U.S. history; in fact, those three consistently rank in the bottom three, though the order varies. In more recent polls and surveys that include Barack Obama, he consistently ranks in the 2nd quartile (best to worst) -- somewhere in the 14-17th range. By comparison, George W. Bush consistently ranks in the bottom quartile -- typically somewhere in the 34-38th range; more or less in the same range as Richard Nixon.

    Others have also jumped on your preposterous claim and exposed it for the ideological hyperbole it is, and rightly so.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    July 26, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    Romney"s presidency would have really helped the economy and created real jobs.We would be in the process of freeing ourselves from Obamacare. The liberal press would go completely out of their minds in attacking everything Romney does. America made the wrong choice in choosing Obama. Obama has been a divider.Using,the bully pulput to make inflammatory comments on race. He has bypassed congress to make recess appointments. He has allowed Eric Holder to ignore the Supreme Court and press for their own liberal agenda on voting rights. Basically we have a radical liberal socialist administration that is harming the economy and dividing the country.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    July 26, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    Oh, yes, by all means, let's re-litigate the last election. None of us have anything better to do.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    July 26, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    It's totally obvious that the Romney criticizers on this post are still entrenched in ignorance of who Romney really is and what his realistic potential could've accomplished. It's utterly sad that so many people judge and criticize from an uninformed basis.

    Many of Romney's most avid critics completely changed their opinions about him once they truly got to know him. He is a moral, principled leader with the experience and credentials to have helped this country significantly.

    We are a self-chosen (via democracy) capitalistic based society in America. We became the greatest country in the world by espousing capitalism from a Republic based Constitution. It's a disaster to currently have a president who has no capitalism experience and who has consequently lost millions of high paying manufacturing jobs and is replacing them with low paying service industry jobs. The tax base has diminished and our federal deficit is growing at an unprecedented and unsustainable rate. Romney would've already taken steps to reverse and correct that major problem, based on his past performances in economic settings.

    The Romneys spent years living in a basement apartment and budgeting tightly while going to college. He understands.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    July 26, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    Sure dream all day that Romney were president. And pray all night we all forget the dumb things George Bush did.

  • FreedomFighter41 Orem, UT
    July 26, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    Did anyone here bother to read the article? The Economist isn't complimentary of Romney.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    July 26, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    I'll tell you what would happen.
    Your grandparents would have to go back to work to afford healthcare and meds, the rich would get richer, and the poor would be walking Mitt's dogs and mowing his lawn.

  • snowyphile Jemez Springs, NM
    July 26, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    Good politicians can delay the inevitable demise of our country, just as bad ones accelerate it, but we're going downhill, no matter whom gets elected. It's foolish to pin hopes on any individual. Our institutions guarantee failure; democracy can't be delegated.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    July 26, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    Even if Romney won the election, it is very unlikely that any of his reforms would actually succeed because the Senate is controlled by Democrats who would be just as likely to obstruct the Romney agenda as Republicans have been obstructing the Obama agenda. Let's be honest with ourselves. Politics in D.C. has devolved into a perpetual brinksmanship. The article in the Economist mentions these points, but this DesNews article conveniently leaves that part out.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    July 26, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    What if Romney had won? Obviously it's difficult to say anything with any certainty.

    One thing we can say for sure is, if Romney had won - 180,000 Americans who work in the health care industry would still have their jobs. That's because Obamacare wouldn't have passed, meaning there wouldn't have been increased taxes on healthcare companies that spurred massive layoffs within the industry.

    Obamacare: 180,000 lost jobs and counting...

  • Vince Ballard South Ogden, UT
    July 26, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    I doubt much would have changed. One candidate was raised a welfare child, and while not stigmatic in itself, it left him without a perspective on how most people live. The other candidate was "Ritchie Rich", which also left him without a perspective on how the "productive class" lives. Until a leader arises who does, our nation will continue it's decline.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 26, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    To many opinions formed by media news, and people do little researching to counter.

  • VAggie Bristow, United States
    July 26, 2013 8:20 a.m.


    Although I will not go as far to say that Obama was the worst, but I think Obama did do things that I consider bad. Largely the Principal Reduction Alternative, which creates a huge moral hazard.

    I dont think you can blame Bush for a lot of the issues. Bush really had very little to do with the recession, and the only ones to blame for 9-11 are the terrorists. If people ever realize how little Bush had to do with the bad economy I think history will be kinder to him.

  • Albert Maslar CPA (Retired) Absecon, NJ
    July 26, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    In a phrase attributed to physicist Niels Bohr, “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” Romney certainly had better intentions than his opponent but any improvements might have been slight in light of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who continues to thwart efforts for real legislative progress and reform. Also, the populace is nearly evenly divided on every major issue, making the US the "Divided States of America."

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 26, 2013 7:29 a.m.

    "@morganh - you say Clinton was willing to negotiate with Republicans as if to imply that Obama hasn't been. Quite the opposite. He's been trying so hard to negotiate with Republicans to realize that they're not willing to negotiate with him."

    On that point....the House Republicans are having a hard time compromising with themselves right now. We truly have a fractured government right now, even within the parties themselves. I see little that leads me to believe that in this current environment Romney would have gotten further than Obama has.

    So long as compromise and working across the isle is seen as weakness, stagnation will be the rule of the day.... no matter who is president.

  • Itsjstmeagain Merritt Island, Fl
    July 26, 2013 6:59 a.m.

    Mr. Romney would not have made a good President. This man was morally bankrupt in is drive for profits above all else. Running a Country is not a profit centrist idea, it is about balancing the needs of everyone, in a financially prudent way.
    Romney's first actions would be to sell several states.

  • elarue NEW YORK, NY
    July 26, 2013 6:58 a.m.

    @morganh - you say Clinton was willing to negotiate with Republicans as if to imply that Obama hasn't been. Quite the opposite. He's been trying so hard to negotiate with Republicans to realize that they're not willing to negotiate with him.

  • elarue NEW YORK, NY
    July 26, 2013 6:56 a.m.

    @happy2behere - I voted for Obama in 2008, and I was severely disappointed in his inability to stand up for middle and working class families. And yes, I still say Romney would be worse, because he would go so far as to outright attack middle and working class families (probably accuse them of being the 47%.) That's why I voted for a true liberal progressive - Jill Stein.

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    July 26, 2013 6:21 a.m.

    What if Mitt had won??

    Would he suddenly have got in touch with the country?

    Would he understand what it is like to live a normal life?

    More likely he would have continued the path he has always trod..that of indifferent arrogance. He would kill off entities that he did not like or did not make money from, he would work with the groups that surrounded him and George W and most likely have this country in a war.

    As Allan Greenspan predicted the country would have incurred much more debt with no reasonable plan to get rid of it.

    I for one am glad to live in the present.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    July 26, 2013 5:54 a.m.

    In all honesty, I doubt if we'd be in any different situation. Sequestration would have already been implemented so the economy would be slowing down due to less stimulus and federal spending, higher taxes, and the deficit would be shrinking (would he take credit for that?). Romney would still be grappling with a divided Congress where the Senate will not overturn ObamaCare. Romney did say he'd approve the Keystone pipeline, so my guess is that the debate and obstacles for it would shift to the states and local communities suing to prevent it from going through their backyards. No big jobs creator... at least not yet.

    He'd be stumped on Egypt and America's approach to it would not be different than it is now.

    The one difference would be renewable energy. Under Obama, renewables are booming. Under Romney, he'd turn us back to coal, unionized coal jobs, leading to more need for government health assistance for the industry and dirtier air. I think Romney would lock horns with conservative Midwest states where wind power is a growing industry (and where he lost important states, such as Iowa and Colorado).

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    July 26, 2013 5:31 a.m.

    I am thrilled that Obama won. He is definitely a president of the people and he's done an outstanding job. If congress wasn't against him, he'd be able to do more. I'm glad that Romney didn't win. I believe his comment about not caring about the 47% and I really admire Obama's stand on equality for everyone. Our country is better off having Obama as President. If Hillary runs in 2016, I'll be voting for her as our first woman president!

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 26, 2013 5:05 a.m.

    @Ernest T. Bass 9:48 p.m. July 25, 2013

    If Romney had won then blessings, even rich blessings would be in store for America!


    The correct statement is "If Romney had won then rich blessings for the rich would be in store for America . . . and the rest of us could just go hang!

  • Bob K porland, OR
    July 26, 2013 4:30 a.m.

    Romney was autocratic, his wife even more so -- and seemed to be running only from mormon duty, not from a real desire for the race.

    Most commenters knock President Obama. Although imperfect, he certainly did not dismiss half of America as no good. Can anyone refute the idea that the rich have gotten richer, the poor poorer, due to previous republican policies?

    Sorry, lds people. If you would like to elect a President, do better next time

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 26, 2013 1:29 a.m.

    The western world, not just the United States BTW, is not recovering rapidly from the 2008 (last year of the Bush presidency, BTW) collapse because all such nations are practicing what is called economic austerity, which is punishing the innocent working class while those responsible get off scott free. If Romney had been elected we would have much more austerity than we have now. Many more would not be able to get health care and the economy would have sunk to Spanish depths.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 25, 2013 10:49 p.m.

    "Learn from the past, prepare for the future, live in the present.”

    ― Thomas S. Monson

    Repubs, the election ended almost 9 months ago. Time to move on. Dnews, that goes for you too. Stop fueling this fire. Time to move on.

  • morganh Orem, Utah
    July 25, 2013 10:08 p.m.

    @ alt

    I was not even born during Buchanan's time so I can't say Obama is worse than him. But I can say that since I have been following politics which starts with Reagan, to now Obama takes the cake as the worst President. Even Clinton who I didn't like was willing on occasion to negotiate with Republicans once in awhile. Obama said in 2008 he would have the most transparent Presidency and he would reach across the aisle and work with the other side. What he really ended up doing was going around the country blaming the Republican Party for gridlock because they don't support his idea of taxing the rich who by the way already pay the majority of our taxes. Also the Republicans have drafted legislation to create jobs and improve our healthcare, but since it is not the Gov't takeover that Obamacare is, Harry "lost his values" Reid will not even bring it up a vote in the Senate. We tried to get fiscal responsibility and we got four more years of a very bad President whose goal is to accomplish the unfilled dream of his socialist father in America.

  • George New York, NY
    July 25, 2013 10:08 p.m.

    It seems to me the economist magazine giving their opinion on what would be good or bad for the economy is kind of like the fox given their opinion on what'sgood or bad for the hen house.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 25, 2013 10:02 p.m.

    Which Romney?

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    July 25, 2013 9:48 p.m.

    If Romney had won then blessings, even rich blessings would be in store for America!

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    July 25, 2013 9:45 p.m.

    There were plenty of Presidents worse than Obama. I too rate Buchanan the worst but right up there is Harding, Grant, Pierce, Carter, W. Van Buren, Andrew Johnson, LBJ, Nixon, probably some others I missed. I rate President Obama quite low because he has generally failed in many of his goals and to work effectively with Congress. Some of his appointments have been far from stellar. He is no Truman as far as taking blame for shortcomings. Still, to be fair, his term is not over and perhaps things could change but I'm not really seeing this on the horizon. His biggest "achievement" is the Affordable Care Act which might be a disaster.

    I think the problem we are running into as a nation is Congress, deeply divided and representing the fringes of each party making compromise more difficult. The President also seems untractable in his positions, therefore nothing substantial to help the country moves forward and bigger problems to use a cliche get kicked down the road.

    Unless the dynamics change, tough times are ahead.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 25, 2013 9:39 p.m.

    If Romney were President?? Ah yes two dollar a gallon gas, world leaders bowing at our feet, no Obamacare and still everyone has health care, and yes a unicorn on everyone's front lawn and a rainbow in their backyard.

    Obama the worst President in American history? Seriously when the President before over saw the first attack on American soil, led us into a preemptive war that skyrocketed our debt and killed hundreds of thousands of people including ten thousand Americans. Then over saw the worst recession in 70 years where we were losing 250,000 jobs a month. I'm not even saying he's the worst President I'm just saying Obama hasn't done anything even close to being as terrible as this President.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 25, 2013 9:03 p.m.

    "Oil is a global commodity"? Gas in Europe are around $4.00 per gallon more than here with oil going less distance. Taxes on gasoline are controlled by government, and does effect price.

    " $2 a gallon gas would effectively kill exploration in North America. That pipeline.... would surely never see the light of day.... because the capital to build it.. would not have been there." --The capital would increase if taxes were not taken for redistribution--taxes are higher than oil profits.

    We're being scammed.

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    July 25, 2013 9:02 p.m.

    Oh, my, here we go again.
    People are literally living in a dream world. How can otherwise, probably, intelligent people keep this up week after week?
    They really think Romney and Obama, absolutely, can control everything!
    This feels like some kind peculiar historical fiction that will be available in about 25 years.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 25, 2013 8:26 p.m.

    @ute alumni
    "it is impossible for obama groupies to understand that he is the worst president in US history."

    His worst jobs month was Jan 2009, the month he was only in office the last bit of it. Bin Laden is dead, the Iraq war is over. I can understand you not thinking he's all that good since well, you probably don't support a lot of the things I do like Obamacare, but to think he's the worst president in history is delusional. Oh and, by the way, I do not consider George W. Bush to be the worst. I give that honor to Buchanan.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    July 25, 2013 8:23 p.m.

    I preface this comment that I have been accused of being both liberal and conservative on these blogs. I am neither but try to be fair minded.

    I have to judge Romney by his past and overall he has been competent whether it was heading the Olympics, business or as governor. Not perfect but competent. With the President, well there is little to judge. He was a community organizer and then had a very small time in actual elected politics, none in the Executive Branch. I think we are paying the price for this experience. Romney has a thicker skin so to speak and deals much better with disagreement and criticism while the President takes things personal to his detriment.

    However, Romney would still have to deal with gridlock. While I think he has a better a skill set to deal with that, there is no guarantee that he wouldn't be as impotent as the President is now with moving his agenda forward. That is the nature of politics. While I think Romney has better skills to work with the other party, there is still no guarantee that he could still move things forward.

  • The Reader Layton, UT
    July 25, 2013 8:00 p.m.

    It is useless to speculate about a Romney Presidency.

    It is easy to speculate how much better off the country would be IF the Republicans had not done everything in their power to make sure Obama was only a one term president.

    If the republicans even now would try to do what is right for the country instead of what is right for their idioligy. The T Party is truely the American Taliban.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    July 25, 2013 7:43 p.m.


    The recovery is happening, or have you not been paying attention to the DJIA and record-breaking corporate profits?

    Unemployment is below what it was when Obama took office.

    Again, please bring your arguments back to the real world.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    July 25, 2013 7:27 p.m.

    The only people who still say Romney would have been worse for the country are the people who now see that Obama is not, and never was, Presidential material, but just can't come to admit it yet. One day you will. Otherwise, enjoy your coolaid.

  • ute alumni paradise, UT
    July 25, 2013 7:22 p.m.

    it is impossible for obama groupies to understand that he is the worst president in US history. unfortunately, it will be almost impossiblre to recover economically and spiritually when he leaves office. takers got what they wanted........a disaster.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    July 25, 2013 7:21 p.m.

    Really? Another Romney story? And no more information in this one than we have ever gotten about him or exactly what he would have done.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 25, 2013 7:10 p.m.

    @What in Tucket?
    "It's tough for an honest man like Mr. Romney"

    That's funny.

    "Gasoline would now be $2.00 a gallon"

    No it wouldn't, it'd be around where it is now. Oil is a global commodity and the President really has way less influence on it than you think.

    "International leaders would have new respect for the USA"

    Based on what? Heck if Republicans took the senate I think we'd be at war with Iran by now. You do realize international relations were in shambles after the Bush team got through with it, right? (And that Romney had many top Bush team guys as his foreign policy advisors).

    " maybe he would use the reduction in his capital gains tax to increase the number of employees and improve their benefits. "

    Businesses are currently sitting on record setting profits rather than investing it... plus your plan involves larger deficits than Obama's.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    July 25, 2013 6:56 p.m.

    This fantasizing about a Romney presidency is bizarre.

    Please you guys, live in the real world. There's real and urgent work to be done here.

    Or, you can go on dreaming of what color the unicorns would be on the Romney Whitehouse lawn.

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    July 25, 2013 6:46 p.m.

    merich39; the person that fills out that W2 for you would probably be in a better position to offer you some benefits if his taxes weren't quite so high. maybe he would use the reduction in his capital gains tax to increase the number of employees and improve their benefits. maybe if more people were paying taxes, then your share wouldn't be so big, and the amount might even go down. Did that even come to mind at all?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 25, 2013 6:39 p.m.

    "Gasoline would now be $2.00 a gallon," and Texas' economy would be in shambles.

    Be really careful what you ask for. $2 a gallon gas would effectively kill exploration in North America. That pipeline.... would surely never see the light of day.... because the capital to build it.. would not have been there.

    I was really hoping that there was more detail here. It would have been really interesting to see what these 20 days of rapid fire change would have been. Its too bad.... it might have been good stuff.... but for what ever reason these great ideas still aren't being shared.

    If Romney has the secret sauce, lets see it.....

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 25, 2013 6:03 p.m.

    Well, Mitt planned to push for elimination of all capital gains taxes. Most of his own income is from capital gains. So if successful, his taxes would have gone away completely. And my taxes on my actual W2 income would have had to go up to make up the difference. That's one difference between Romney and Obama that comes immediately to mind.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 25, 2013 6:01 p.m.

    Gasoline would now be $2.00 a gallon, and the economy would be improving.

    People would not be appreciating the difference with Romney. IMO, a society must experience massive trials, and depression periodically to renew the understanding, and goodness of liberty.

    It's like being really thirsty. You realize the importance of water.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    July 25, 2013 5:46 p.m.

    It's tough for an honest man like Mr. Romney to make it in politics. We have had a 0.9% growth per year in the past 4 years. This is stagnation. Regulations, tax obfuscation, and stratospheric debt serious oncoming problems with entitlements would have been correctly treated by Romney. Obama can't or won't help us.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    July 25, 2013 4:51 p.m.

    If Romney had won we would have had a competent, smart and moral leader. International leaders would have new respect for the USA. He wouldn't be complicating racial problems by speaking out on the Martin/Zimmerman case. Business would have greater confidence in the government. He would lead instead of blame. And he would be able to work with both parties. Obamacare would be dead. Instead, we reelected an out of touch charismatic, cowardly, golfing narcissist.